1 2025:CGHC:58010 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8519 of 2018 1 - Bhauaa Ram S/o Late Ramlal, Aged About 66 Years Retired Peon, R/o Village Shreegarh, P.O. And Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Water Resources Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Executive Engineer, Department Of Water Resource, Division-2, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur Chhattisgarh, District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Joint Director, Treasury Accounts And Pension, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - The District Treasury Officer District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. R. V. Rajwade, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Singh, PL Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 28.11.2025 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.06.2015 Annexure P/1 passed by the respondent No. 3 whereby recovery of Rs. 29,600/- was directed from the petitioner. HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.12.03 17:02:58 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as a Peon under the respondents and retired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2015. He submits that after two years of his retirement, the impugned order dated 16.06.2015 (Annexure P/1) was passed. He submits that that the petitioner is Class-4 employee. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334, and submits that the recovery cannot be made from the petititoner. Therefore, he prays that writ petition may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside. 3. Opposing the submissions, learned State counsel submits that the excess amount was made to the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order was passed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. In the case of Rafik Mashi (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “18. It is not possible to postulate all situations of hardship which would govern employees on the issue of recovery, where payments have mistakenly been made by the employer, in excess of their entitlement. Be that as it may, based on the decisions referred to hereinabove, we may, as a ready reference, summarise the following few situations, wherein recoveries by the employers, would be impermissible in law: (i) Recovery from the employees belonging to Class III and Class IV service (or Group C and Group D service). (ii) Recovery from the retired employees, or the employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from the employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or 3 arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.” 6. In light of the above authoritative pronouncement, the facts of the present case are to be examined. The petitioner is a Class-IV employee and the impugned order (Annexure P/1) was issued after two year of his retirement. The alleged excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioner. In the considered view of this Court, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision in Rafiq Masih (supra). Accordingly, the impugned order (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent authorities directing recovery of the alleged excess payment is set aside. The amount recovered, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari